There is a central doctrine in Aristotle that usually isn’t recognized in its importance: the affirmation of the difference and the plurality. In the course of the centuries, Aristotelism lost which was perhaps its most characteristic and specific feature versus Platonism, that is, its criticism of unity and its defense of plurality. The first principle is not the One but the plurality. The horizon of thinking is not the unity but the diversity of the logos. The unity of the logos (...) presupposes the differences within reality. Heidegger attracted attention to the peculiarity of the practical philosophy of Aristotle. It was the case of dialectics, rhetoric, poetics, ethics, politics, etc. We are referring to knowledges that are art rather than science. Nothing is so differentiated as human action, as it is always performed from a new starting point. Dialectic and rhetorical speeches are always circumscribed to the individual. (shrink)

The human intellect has the capacity to assimilate the external world to man. This assimilation takes place according to the proper mode of the intellect that has an intentional manner to know. Thus is realized the act of knowing by which man manages to read from within the different realities, according to the etymology of the Latin word intellectus. Yet the intellect is not the only spiritual capacity of man, but there is also the will. The latter has a special (...) role in the act of intellectual knowledge. It is dependent on the action of the intellect, but it also influences the action of the intellect. In the following article I analyze this interdependence, especially the place of desire in the act of knowledge. Thomas Aquinas attributed desire to the will. In which sense can we attribute desire to the intellect as well? (shrink)

Partindo de um sentido prescritivo de necessidade, própria do que é condição depossibilidade para a realização de um certo objetivo, analiso inicialmente o procedimentoscotista de neutralização de duas abordagens tradicionais sobre a necessidade da metafísica.Há, por um lado, a neutralização da pretensão dos philosophi de demonstrar a suficiênciada metafísica para a consecução de nosso fim último; e, por outro, a neutralizaçãoda tentativa dos theologi de provar a insuficiência da metafísica para a realização daquelemesmo fim. O procedimento de Scotus de justificação (...) da necessidade da metafísica será emseguida reconstruído, um procedimento que incorpora frente à tradição traços de umaprofunda redefinição dos objetivos e procedimentos daquela ciência. (shrink)

Christine de Pizan da vida a su gobernante ideal a partir de la tradición medieval del aristotelismo político y su noción de lo “arquitectónico”. Construido a modo de una arquitectura viviente de ciencias, el rey sabio aparece dominando la paleta de saberes, que va desde la episteme hasta los conocimientos más prácticos. Teoría y práctica se encuentran, así, en la base de su construcción de lo político. Pero ¿en qué medida la autora se consagra a brindar una explicación del pasaje (...) de las ciencias, sobre todo, aquel que va de las especulativas al registro práctico de la ciencia política? Si el rey se distingue por ser un sabio al tiempo que un experto en las diversas ciencias, cabe preguntarse si acaso la autora teoriza sobre dicho pasaje de lo teórico a lo práctico que constituye la esencia de su pensamiento. ¿Cuál es el canal para volcar la episteme al servicio del Estado? Al respecto, sostengo la hipótesis de que tanto la prudencia como el entendimiento o intelecto parecen ser los dos componentes de la sabiduría perfecta que la escritora aúna en una perfecta díada; operación, esta, que le permite explicar el pasaje de todas las ciencias al plano de lo contingente. ¿Acaso no es, gracias a esta operación, que el rey sabio de Christine de Pizan aparece como el intelecto supremo de la comunidad política, encarnada en el reino de Francia? ¿No son las ciencias, de este modo, redituables en servicio del Estado? (shrink)

There is a central doctrine in Aristotle that usually isn’t recognized in its importance: the affirmation of the difference and the plurality. In the course of the centuries, Aristotelism lost which was perhaps its most characteristic and specific feature versus Platonism, that is, its criticism of unity and its defense of plurality. The first principle is not the One but the plurality. The horizon of thinking is not the unity but the diversity of the logos. The unity of the logos (...) presupposes the differences within reality. Heidegger attracted attention to the peculiarity of the practical philosophy of Aristotle. It was the case of dialectics, rhetoric, poetics, ethics, politics, etc. We are referring to knowledges that are art rather than science. Nothing is so differentiated as human action, as it is always performed from a new starting point. Dialectic and rhetorical speeches are always circumscribed to the individual. (shrink)